Supreme Court rebukes Bush on rights for Gitmo detainees
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 4 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 24 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
66 Comments
Login to comment
0
Taka313
Cannot be understated:
Taka
0
skipthesong
“the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”
So, why is it that they, these ones, get the special treatment?
0
RedMeatKoolAid
"Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens — the court’s more liberal members — joined Kennedy to form the majority."
0
skipthesong
Taka, if I am correct, I believe you stated you were in the military for a while. Let me ask you this - What has the US usually done with POWs in other wars? Have the let them make their cases in US courts or is this a first?
If it is not a first, I welcome this judgment, but if it is a first, I ask why the special treatment?
0
yabits
LOL!! Three of the five -- Stevens, Kennedy and Souter -- appointed by Republican presidents. (Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush respectively.)
0
Betzee
“We’ll abide by the court’s decision. the president said....
Glad to hear it. Many Americans, and not just liberals, found GWB's view that the executive branch possesses the authority to deliberately violate federal law exceedingly disturbing.
As the majority recognized:
The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty...
We're fighting for our principles, not just our safety, after all. Anyways, I guess it's good that Mitt Romney is not the Republican nominee since he pledged "to double the size of Gitmo."
0
skipthesong
Many Americans, and not just liberals, found GWB's view that the executive branch possesses the authority to deliberately violate federal law exceedingly disturbing."
You view is correct and accepted, however, my question is that in the time of war, have other POWs been given the same rights as these?
When we catch terror suspects in lands not of their own, where are to put them? In their country of origin?
Before you accuse me of anything, I am asking.
0
DXXJP
I thought it was always catch and release. Are these people PO-W's? Dubya calls them enemy combatants, but you or me could be called that on a whim. Just out of curiosity why do we have a base in Cuba, don't we also have an embargo on them. Are we renting or did we invade and take that too.
0
Betzee
Skip,
I don't have any expertise on how POWs were treated in other wars. But I presume those apprehended were caught on the battlefield or some other incriminating location.
The enemy combatants held at Gitmo, by contrast, were largely turned over to US authorities by a third-party which collected a reward. We don't have anything directly on them, it's all somebody else's word. I think you can see the problem here....
In the film Taxi to the Dark Side, a young Afghan taxi driver, captured by Afghan authorities and handed over to the U.S., is beaten to death during interrogation at Bagram. His two passengers were sent to Gitmo, where they remained for two years before being released.
Nobody's ever declared "innocent," or even "not guilty" incidentally. Simply no longer an enemy combatant. In this case, none of these men were ever linked to Al Qaeda or even the Taliban, those who turned them did so to collect the reward.
0
DXXJP
Kinda like Saddam. What did the US pay out for that, then they also got a free ticket to the states.
Yes Sarge many luxurious palace's we know we know
0
Betzee
The whole point of sticking detainees in a prison in Cuba was to prevent them from utilizing the laws of our land in their own defense. But the Supreme Court ruled that anyone held in what is de facto U.S. territory, and Gitmo certainly qualifies, regardless of the crimes he may have committed and his national origin, is entitled to challenge his detention in a U.S. court of law.
Let's remember one of the reasons the American Revolution was fought was because the King, or those acting on his behalf, could take away your liberty without giving a reason.
0
SuperLib
Skip, the prisoners aren't considered to be POWs. They were granted the same rights as POWs, but I don't think their status was ever a prisoner of war. There are guidelines to designate a person as a POW and these people fail to meet those guidelines, but due to pressure the US decided to give them the benefits of the POW status. If the US captured Bin Laden or Zawahiri tomorrow it's like not you'd see them in handcuffs in a cell in the New York police department with a public defender.
The "enemy combatant" designation was something which I believe started during WWII. You'd have cases where German spies were captured on American soil. They weren't uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield (one of the requirements to designate someone as POW), and it's not like you could put them on trial in the US. But, it's been a long time since I've read up on it and right now I'm struggling to remember.
Betzee, I'd much prefer to stick to the facts at hand rather than play on peoples emotions by giving fuzzy references to situations from 300 year ago. Besides, I'm guessing there was no Supreme Court in England when King George was ruling that would overturn his decisions based on the Constitution. But I can understand your desire to make the most emotional response possible which is probably why you chose a reference that would strike a chord with Americans. I gave you an "A" in your propaganda.
0
SushiSake3
The screwed up thing about this issue is that the people - usually extreme Wingers - holler on about how Gitmo inmates deserve no rights (not even habeus corpus), and yet they have NO idea why these people are being detained besides vague labels such as "they are Terrorists,", 'they are enemy combatants," etc. THEREFORE they must be guilty.
Yet, if that is the case, then why is it that hardly any Gitmo inmates (I believe no more than 10?) have been charged with anything at all?
And why is it that interrogators have received instructions from the highest levels to destroy their interrogation notes?
It's the people who believe 'all Gitmo inmates must be guilty' who are living proof of mindless and unthinking some war supporters have become.
It's pretty sad.
Of course I'm not saying Gitmo inmates are all innocent, but let's give them a fair trial to weed out the ones that are and the ones that aren't.
None of this military tribunal BS - put them in front of a Federal court, let them hear what they are being charged with - if anything - and give them the opportuunity to defend themselves.
Especially the dads.
0
Betzee
I thought you didn't read my posts anyway, cuz they are "too radical."
In fact it was the majority opinion which cited Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 84 in which he observed: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." My point exactly; but those who beg to differ here need to make a counter case.
Most positions can appear reasonable if they are decontextualized from historical precedent. And of course that's easier when people don't know their own history.
0
Betzee
Sushi,
This will certainly set-off SuperLib in large part because he has no way to refute it:
The founding fathers understood that there needed to be checks on governmental power for there to be liberty. By creating a subclass of people who could be held indefinitely, and tried in [military] tribunals rather than by the normal legal system, this administration (with congress's assistance and consent) effectively made the world less safe from the government. If they were wrong about WMD, they could be wrong about saying someone is a terrorist, and that person would have no legal recourse under Bush's practice, where people could simply be held without trial.
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/13/gitmo_bush/view/?show=all
0
SuperLib
Betzee, you're missing the point entirely.
From your Salon letter:
The headline:
Believe it or not, some might actually take the wild position that the recent ruling (and past rulings) by the Supreme Court against Bush actually serves as evidence that checks and balances still exist in the US. Crazy, huh?
But please, tell us another King George story. The similarities are simply astounding.
0
adaydream
From the very beginning, george bush and dick cheney tried to set themselves above all and designated the POWs as "enemy combatants" and made like they could try them any way they wanted to. They actually wanted to do a "Saddam" type trial and they'd make examples of them. (Not that I don't understand that, but there are properways to do things.)
From the beginning, their brovado about these POWs was that we'll do as we want. Their holier than thou attitude made ACLU Liberals take up a banner and cause, just because george bush was such a dork.
But because they designated them as enemy combatants, they didn't think they had to follow the rules established for POWs. That's why they thought they'd also get away with their Water-Boarding and any other means of torture we just haven't heard about.
This administration has treated the whole country basically the very same as he treated these POWs. he can do any damned thing he wants and we can't do anything about it. Everything is covered by executive priviledge. You and I have been george bush's stepping stone for revenge and hatred and we'll be paying for it in our tax dollars forever. We have paid for it in arms, legs, brain trauma and death. Families torn apart, just because george bush wanted to be a war president. < :-)
0
Betzee
Expanded executive branch authority was defended as necessary to "keep us safe." Anyone who objected was accused of appeasement (or worse).
Interestingly, in the opinions, the majority cites the founding fathers' intent, which was to codify citizen rights vis-a-vis state power, and even goes back to ancient English Law. The dissenters, by contrast, are all over the place trying to defend the GWB detention policy. I was disappointed because, other than Clarence Thomas, I thought they all had first-rate minds.
0
apecNetworks
There isn't much time left
With only a few months left, I still think it would be a swell idea for every major member of the Bush Administration go on national TV on a Sunday, in PRIME TIME, and recite the Bill of Rights and their personal views of the US Constitution. That memorable evening could be recorded for posterity.
0
Taka313
By Comedy Central or the Cartoon Network? ;-)
Taka
0
Taka313
Skip, Yes, I was in the Navy for quite some time however, I'm not an expert on POWs.
My issue with this is that the white house did not want to give the Gitmo detainees the rights they would be afforded under the Geneva Conventions, and they didn't want them to be treated as criminals either. This leads to a situation where people are being held, against their will, on U.S. soil with no legal rights.
No one on American soil should be without rights. It's un-American, plain and simple. It flies in the face of everything that makes our country great (not strong mind you, but GREAT). Apparently the SCOTUS agrees. I'm happy they do.
Taka
0
skipthesong
taka and betzee, thank you both for taking the time to answer my question and I respect both your stances. Now, I personally have a two sided thought on this issue. One is that this is not a usual war and a war that at the time of the Genva Convention was written was most likely not even thought of. I agree that people caught on the battle field are POWs and should be tried under military courts. I would even go as far as saying that I think battlefield courts provided by the US and its allies is a lot more human than that of getting caught by the current "other side". I will bend to say that those who were caught by third parties as Betzee describes to be given a fair trial, but since they are already at Gitmo, why change their residence now? just allow them to have Lawyers who would go there.
What I am concerned about is that there are a few very bad MF'ers there. I would hate for some very good lawyer walk in and get them off.
one note, Taka " No one on American soil should be without rights. It's un-American, plain and simple" Its not plain and simple, but going into it would be going off topic. I am sure you know what I was going to post.
The argument I guess we are having is moot and the decision has been made. There is nothing I can do anyway, so all I should is shrug my shoulders and say oh well.
0
kinniku
Skip,
I saw this this morning. I have to say I think it is a good decision and that it should have been made a while back.
Always a concern at any trial. But it is the price any country pays to act in a just and civilized way.
0
Taka313
Skip, I do. I thought about that after I posted. What is "American?" Am I in the ball park?
Well...I believe that America is defined not by the person running the country but by the laws that govern our country. No president and no war is bigger than the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion. You may think that this war offers extraordinary circumstances that require the suspension of our civil rights. You aren't alone. Our govt. rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them into internment camps during WW2 and the people were told at the time, it was for the safety of America. However, it's one of the biggest stains on our history. Honestly, I've never met a single person in my life who has defended the decision to put the Japanese-Americans in those camps or thought it was a good idea. At the time, people didn't think it was so bad but looking back...not so much. I strongly believe Gitmo will be seen in the same light. As will Iraq. Honestly, I think the lion's share of the bush presidency will be considered a national shame.
Taka
One thing I'm very excited to see after Sen. Obama is elected president is if the people here at JT who have referred to me as a traitor to my country because I don't support bush will either a) change their definition of what a traitor is or b) shut the hell up and support President Obama at ever turn, like they expected me to do of bush.
That is going to be a very fun lesson, methinks.
Taka
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
I'm not sure that the argument about this not being a usual war should be used here. What, for example, is a "usual war"? That term needs to be looked at.
Certainly WW1 with its trench warfare and thousands of people dying for territorial gains that were measured in tens of meters was not a usual war. WW2 with the holocaust and the deployment of the atomic bombs was not a usual war. The Korean War ended in a stalemate that persists until today and was not a usual war. The Vietnam War, in which we killed 2,000,000 Vietnamese in a losing cause, was not a usual war. The First Gulf War, in which we allowed Saddam to maintain control over Iraq, was not a usual war. It seems to me that wars tend to be unique.
The argument that this is an exceptional case so we must take exceptional measures is too easily applied by those who want to take exceptional measures. Yes, this is an exceptional case. But almost every war is an exceptional case.
0
Loki520
Sez,
I think what he means by "unique" is the opponent. This is the first time that the enemy is not a member of a nations uniformed services. The opponents are religious zealot's who have more loyalty to their religion than any country. And that is certainly "unique".
0
Betzee
I don't think anyone expects Gitmo to be closed. But the rationale for sending detainees there has been legally undercut. It loses its constitutional-rights-free zone status. Gitmo may be in Cuba but its not part of Castro's gulag, it's a US detention facility.
0
SuperLib
Taka and skip, the situation really isn't that cut and dry. The rules for POW status were written during a time when wars were fought a certain way. Terrorism is a completely different type of war with a different type of enemy.
In the past you could capture someone on the battlefield, wait until the war was over, then send him back home. Since terrorism really has no end then you can't use those same rules. There's not going to be one day when terrorism is "over" and you can release the terrorists you have in custody.
More on POW status from Wikipedia:
"To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must be a "lawful combatant" entitled to combatant's privilege--which gives them immunity for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance", and bear arms openly. Thus, francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies may be excluded."
It's pretty clear that a terrorist doesn't fall under that description. When they don't fall under the POW (or "lawful combatant"), they are considered to be enemy combatants (or "unlawful combatants"). Again, from Wikipedia:
"Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Bush made steps to create a military tribunal for the purposes of trying those at Gitmo, but the Supreme Court struck that down saying only Congress had the authority to create a military tribunal. I believe that happened a couple of years ago. Bush was going to go to Congress and ask them to create the tribunals for him, but I really can't remember what happened with that. Maybe someone else here knows.
In the beginning, the US didn't extend rights under the Geneva Conventions because it was their opinion that those captured were not POWs and not entitled to those protections. After public outcry the US government reversed it's position and started to give the prisoners rights under the Geneva Conventions.
That mostly brings us where we are today in terms of legal status. That's really only half of the problem. The other half is with the evidence and how it should be presented. You have one argument that the accused should be able to see the evidence against him. That's part of our legal system and obviously everyone supports it. You also have the right to see a lawyer. Again, another right that's one of the backbones of the US legal system. But, in the context of terrorism, it brings up an entirely new set of consequences. By showing the evidence you're basically showing terrorists your counterterrorism procedures. Imagine a terrorist is caught on tape using a mobile phone and that evidence is shown to him. Well, obviously the terrorist is going to instruct his lawyer to contact his cell and tell them not to use that mobile phone anymore since it's been compromised. Through his lawyer he's going to tell his cell exactly what the US knows about them and how they're getting their information. If you have a US agent who has infiltrated a cell then you can pretty much consider him dead. Maybe you show the prisoner satellite photos of locations and now he knows that that particular hideout isn't safe anymore. You show him evidence of a purchase of explosives and the purchase of a van to transport them...so obviously they're going to get a different vehicle if they are ever able to carry out the attack.
Basically, everything you show him will be used against the US in order to make killing Americans easier. I suspect that's what Scalia meant when he wrote, "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” In reality you're creating a situation where terrorists are using the US Constitution to help them kill Americans. Consequences like that aren't realized with the accused is an American in the United States. But make the prisoner a terrorist and everything changes.
Even if you were able to convince someone that the evidence is too dangerous to show, you bring up a new situation where you have to question how much you can trust those who are reviewing the evidence behind closed doors. What if he's innocent? How can he defend himself? Who is overseeing those who are in the position to make decisions about the guilt or threat level of a suspect? Right now that's a safeguard that's not in place. And it's obviously a reasonable concern. I can point to the fact that people have been released so there is a mechanism in place to review evidence and release people. The biggest concern is time, which I think was Souter's position. The US isn't doing that fast enough.
So, what do you do? Who knows... In the end I tend to support the point of view that showing them the evidence will probably lead to more American deaths. The erosion of the Constitution is an overstatement in my opinion...we're talking about denying rights to accused terrorists captured in foreign lands, not Americans. Taka, you mentioned Japanese-American internment camps but these rulings wouldn't apply to Americans in America. These rulings don't have any impact on you or me and our rights. You're basically putting 300 million Americans at greater risk in order to give Constitutional rights to 300 foreigners in Gitmo.
I obviously don't have an answer for the point of view that the innocent won't be able to defend themselves to the same extent. And I think having evidence reviewed under closed doors does open up the possibility of abuse. I really don't have any way to account for that other than to say I'd rather see the risk placed on them and not us, if that's the choice I'm forced to make. The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4, so it's not a cut and dry case of simple legal issues.
Now that we've established their legal status, and now that the Supreme Court is giving the prisoners a right to challenge their detention, we're heading head first into the evidence issue.
Some of what I've written above was put together over a long period of time so there may be some inaccuracies.... I'm sure people won't be shy in jumping in to point them out... ;)
0
SezWho2
Loki520,
Setting aside that native Americans were not a part of any nation's uniformed services and that the Viet Cong were not a member of North Vietnam's uniformed services, I'm not sure that whether the current enemy wear national uniforms or not makes any difference. When all wars are unique, it is too easy to argue exceptional needs on account of the supposed uniqueness of the current one.
Furthermore, not all of our opponents are religious zealots. Some are nationalists with the quaint notion that in a democracy the majority should actually determine how the country is to be run and who, with good reason do not quite trust the initiators of the conflict.
What is definitely not unique about this war is that once more we have undertaken to fight an "-ism". Fascism and Communism were our enemies and now we have found a new one Terrorism or, if you prefer, against radical Islamism.
When you're engaged in the business of killing people to assert political will, I don't think it makes any difference whether you do it for God or Country. Or God and Country.
0
ca1ic0cat
Score one for liberty and human rights. The only downside is that it took so long to happen.
There is NEVER any justification for the supression of rights, due process under law or torture. I don't care what you claim to be protecting. Once you've gone that low any claim to be civilized is a mockery of the word.
There is risk associated with freedom. Liberty carries responsibilities. As I've paraphrased Franklin before, "those who give up liberty to gain security will, in the end, have neither."
0
Betzee
There's nothing wrong with rewards per se. A few years back where I used to live the police circulated a grainy surveillance video of a shooting inside a convenience store which left a clerk dead, offering a reward for information leading to the identification of the suspect. He was identified by his mother-in-law who also provided police with info on where he could be found. This entitled her to to collect the reward money.
But the police did not use her to establish a crime had been committed. By contrast, those detained at Gitmo who've been handed over to US authorities by parties which are then compensated are in an entirely different boat. We have only the word of the party which turned them in that, for example, the detainee had a deuce mortar in his possession at the time of apprehension. Moreover, as it stood before the ruling, there's no need to even inform the detainee of whatever rationale was offered by the third party which led to his detention.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the inherent flaws in such a set-up.
0
Betzee
The ruling, in a nutshell, extends this constitutional right to detainees: "If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why."
0
Taka313
Superlib,
Yet.
So...what if an American is brought in? Then it most certainly does. So...do we give the American legal rights for doing the exact same thing that we deny a foreigner or do we deny an American, in America, all legal rights in?
Slippery slopes and all that.
Taka
0
DXXJP
This jogged my memory, and I think it was a week ago there was a guy talking about detainees. Apparently even if they are found innocent most wont be released under dubyas plan. Something to the point that they would be detained until they die or hanged. I want to say it was Gore Vidal that said it but I'm probably wrong.
0
Sarge
"even if they are found innocent"
Yeah, most of them probably are in fact innocent - after all, they were only picked up on the battlefield where American soldiers were getting fired at, killed, etc.
0
SezWho2
I thought this ruling granted the right to detainees to appeal their detention to civilian courts. I didn't think it granted detainess access to all the evidence against them. I thought that was already determined in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.
Yes, the war against terrorism will never end. That is precisely why the government must not detain people without charges until it the war does end.
0
westurn
I say tag em and set em free !
0
Betzee
The reward system was implemented to put dollar signs in the eyes of villagers living in remote outposts who found leaflets dropped from an airplane informing them they would be compensated for fingering terrorist operatives. But if a villager actually knew of someone with such connections he'd be most unlikely to turn him in given the very real possibly for retaliation. Instead Gitmo seems to be filled with detainees who were in involved in some sort of local dispute with a member of their own community who realized this was a way to end it.
Once someone is turned over to American authorities, he faces a risk averse mentality of the part of their captors. "Well, we can't release this person because he might be a terrorist and I don't want to be blamed for making the wrong call."
0
skipthesong
to all you guys above, taka, sez, super, betzee. Thanks. All of you, while on somewhat of opposing sides, really put a lot into these posts and I wish I had more time to respond, instead I am going to print them out and re=-read them as I ride the train home tonight.
But, I can see how deep everyone feels about this and hey Taka, I would never call you a traitor just hope you would allow others to disagree with you. But you did get me on the Japanese American interment part. I have to say cheer to you amigo. You really did get me on that one.
0
Taka313
Skip, Although usually on the other side of the aisle, I have to admit, your posts often leave me with more questions and food for thought than when I started. So, back at'cha with that thanks.
Taka
0
DXXJP
Yeah, most of them probably are in fact innocent - after all, they were only picked up on the battlefield where American soldiers were getting fired at, killed, etc.
There you go again sargie assuming what your fearless leader says is the truth. Believe it how you want, but just know you can be bagged and dumped off there too. Just because your dubyas favorite cheer leader doesn't mean it cant happen to you.
Taka
Interment camp who would do such a thing.
0
Taka313
Skip, And as far as people disagreeing with me... I'm pushing 11 years married. People disagreeing with me is a way of life. ;-)
Taka
0
Taka313
DXXJP, The question sarge's ridiculous assertion begs is: Why have most of them been let go with no charges filed against them then?
Taka
0
SuperLib
Taka, there's only one case of an American being arrested and designated as an enemy combatant: Jose Padilla. He was arrested in the US upon his return from Afghanistan. The courts rejected his designation as an enemy combatant and he was tried in federal count in Miami. He was found guilty of some of the charges and is now in prison.
The situation is about the US government. The courts are now ruling that one body (the US government) must have one policy for all people detained, whether it's you or me in Los Angeles or whether it's Obama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The courts are basically saying that foreigners arrested outside of America will be given protection under the US Constitution. It sounds like you had the impression that the issue was whether or not you or I would be denied rights...?
0
SuperLib
DXXJP, that's different from what my understanding of the issue is. I just checked Wikipedia and here's what they say:
"Since the beginning of the current war in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 of which have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[8] More than a fifth are cleared for release but may have to wait months or years because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them, according to officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. On February 9, 2008, it was reported that 6 of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility would be tried for conspiracy in the September 11, 2001 attacks.[9]. In May 2008, the Pentagon claimed that 36 former Guantanamo inmates were "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism"[10]"
0
DXXJP
Well maybe sarge can navigate the interweb and look up the interview with Tom Lasseter on CNN. I really like the part where he shows how tribes were turning each other in for the reward or to just get someone out of their way. Wow This has never happened before huh sarge.
He also goes on to point out how many who weren't a jihadist were easily converted in gitmo.
0
Sarge
"sarge's ridiculous assertion"
You mean most of them aren't innocent?
"most of them have been let go with no charges filed against them"
I wonder how the American troops who put their lives on the line capturing these guys on the battlefield feel about that.
Sarge
0
DXXJP
Sarge Do you read what you write. It wasnt the american troops rounding them up. They were turned in by who ever for what ever reasons. Answere this who found Saddam.
0
Sarge
"Well maybe sarge can navigate the interweb"
Well, maybe DXXJP can navigate the - ahem - interweb, as he calls it - and check out ""Freed from Gitmo - to Kill in Iraq": www.newser.com/story/26838/.html?refid=YTF_S
0
Sarge
"Sarge Do you read what you write."
Yeah. I wish you would read what you write before posting.
0
Betzee
Interestingly, the British government is now considering extending the period it can hold suspected terrorists without charging them from 28 to 48 days. The most vocal critics are conservatives, includng the former Prime Minister John Major who was the victim of an IRA bombing attempt:
There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.
As the Supreme Court recognized with respect to the Gitmo detainees, the same logic applies. Detainees have the right to be informed for the reasons they have been detained. It is hardly a get out of jail card free.
0
Taka313
Superlib, Thanks for the information. I had completely forgot about Padilla.
Here, we disagree. No offense, but you kind of waxed over that whole "held for years at Gitmo without charges" part. Also, you stated "arrested." To be arrested, you must be charged with something. And I believe that if we are going to hold someone for years at a time, on American soil, we should give them protection under the U.S. Constitution.
Is it less expedient? Abso-freaking-lutely. Is it the right thing to do, I believe so.
Taka
0
sailwind
I agree with Superlib entirely and disagree with Taka. The issue to me is simple protections under the U.S Constitution are granted to those that that believe in the law of man, those that believe that they are above the law of man and feel that they are granted to commit evil acts sanctioned by their believe in God have no rights to complain how the law of man will judge them. They have given up their rights prior to even being captured and sent to the Gitmo when they are become non-citizens of their own states to commit jihad. Protection under our Constitution should not apply to those that reject our laws or the laws of their home countries out of hand. .........There should be no moral ground to argue different in my opinion.
0
adaydream
The bush administration thinks that they can lock-up naybody they wish and change the laws or make up laws to suiot their situation. they just make'em up as they go.
That's like the reasons for attacking Iraq. remember they started out with WMD and every other day there was another reason for attacking Iraq. New day, new reason.
So when they started locking up the the bad guys, they made the rules as they go. Such FOOLS!! And to make things even worse, they conned a good portion of the public into believing that they had the right to do any damn thing they wanted to. < :-)
0
cleo
Does John Walker Lindh not count?
0
Taka313
Sail, There are many who would say that our commander-in-chief (actually, moreso, our VP) would fall into that category. We're back on that slippery slope again.
Taka
0
SuperLib
Actually I mentioned it in my first post and then referenced Souter's opinion about it as well. I agree that they have to do something (charge or release) in a reasonable time frame. In the end that might be the cause of the government's undoing at Gitmo. Had they moved faster I'm wondering if people like Souter would have switched sides.
Either way Obama and McCain both say they're going to close Gitmo. They haven't quite said what they're going to do instead, ie bring them to the US to be tried or not. But by January of next year it's all going to end.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
Protections under US law are not granted exclusively to those who "believe in" those laws. They are granted to all US citizens. The question is to what degree they are to be extended to those who are not US citizens.
In this particular case the issue is whether we may indefinitely detain people without trying them for crimes they have committed and, in fact, without establishing that they have committed crimes. In the US, prosecutorial "belief" that those suspected of crimes do not believe in the laws they are suspected of violating does not cancel those suspects' rights to legal protections. In particular, prosecutors have a limited amount of time in which to show cause for continued detention. So the question is whether we should look at this as being a basic principle of law or whether we are free to ignore laws based on our beliefs about what others believe.
0
Betzee
Yes, he was captured in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and repatriated to face trial. Jose Padilla, by contrast, chose to return to the US in 2002 from his home in Jordan (?) and was arrested in O'Hare Airport in Chicago where his family lived. It's a complicated case but he was deemed an illegal enemy combatant making him eligible to be tried by a military tribunal.
Now I read Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is talking about amending the constitution to restrict the right of habeus corpus, whose roots are traced back to the Magna Carta (maybe further). Such a move reflects "authoritarian radicalism" rather than conservatism as we know it by any textbook definition.
The jettisoning of constitutional liberties is defended on the grounds, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the police look in your window?" The reason we should all care does not lie in the oft-cited scenario, "If I don't say anything next it could be me or my brother."
I'm not worried about that. Rather it's the prospect of "unaccountable government" which poses the larger threat to our way of life. What other actions can be justified on the grounds our safety is at risk? Well, I seem to remember the specter of the mushroom being used as a scaremongering tactic to build public support for a pre-emptive strike.
0
RedMeatKoolAid
I oppose this ruling but must admit it opens up some exciting possibilities for those who oppose America's War on Terror. It appears we are basically saying terrorists and non-uniformed enemy combatants now enjoy the same legal rights granted to US citizens. So here an opportunity presents itself: Human shields, anti-war activists and Democrats can further their own causes by learning Arabic, or Pashtun, or Farsi. They can precede our troops in battle and recite the Miranda Warning to those facing capture or arrest by US forces. Show the world how to really win hearts and minds.
0
Taka313
Your right redmeat. It's so much easier when you (well...not YOU persay) can just, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
Taka
0
apecNetworks
I personally do not believe these type of constitutional issues are going away. The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were written by immigrants fleeing persecution (many). Analyzing the Bill of Rights, it would be hard to NOT come to the conclusion that it would produce a liberal person. The foundation of US laws are inherently liberal. The present US is now a Superpower, w/ far greater power than the British Empire that the founding fathers fought. This Superpower is heavily dependent on the "military-industrial complex", thus leaning more toward an authoritarian tendency. The changes since the 1950's have been astounding, where a moderate republican would now be considered a "liberal". The recipe for extreme political polarity is only starting. Thus, this ruling by the Supreme Court would/should baffle many.
0
RedMeatKoolAid
Terrorists and liberals celebrate this ruling.
By it both groups are at last able to take their common agendas - to destroy America - to the only battlefield they know offers the prospect of victory: the courts.
0
SezWho2
Terrorists and liberals drink milk. The next time you see a winning Indy 500 driver, be very afraid.
Some clear thinking people celebrate this ruling, too, along with people who think that there must be limits to government's power to be whimsical, even in time of war.
0
Taka313
Piggy-backing on Sez's post.
...and that the Constitution is something significantly more than a "Goddamn piece of paper."
Taka
0
Simon_Foston
RedMeatKoolAid said..
"Terrorists and liberals celebrate this ruling.
By it both groups are at last able to take their common agendas - to destroy America - to the only battlefield they know offers the prospect of victory: the courts."
I've nothing at all against conservatives who have well-formed opinions about what's best for their country, but some of you knee-jerk right-wingers really do talk absolute garbage. "Liberals want to destroy America?" You'd blame just about anything on "liberals," wouldn't you. There are also so many of you, all whining on about the same thing - "liberals control the media, liberals would give federal funding to Arabs who eat babies, liberals make you constipated, liberals want you to believe we're descended from hyenas..." give it a rest, it's getting old. Besides, surely the best way to destroy America is to destroy the principles on which it's built - fair trials, Habeas Corpus, not condoning torture, adherence to international laws like the Geneva Conventions, stuff like that.
Back to top